|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Okay, that's it.
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I think we risk putting a selfish attachment to our own moral purity above preventing the awful and forseeable suffering of others.
L.
I agree entirely, (and with most of the rest of your post) and this is why I am not a pacifist, nor would I advocate non-violent resistance as an effective national defence strategy.
The point of my examples was that the world is not only or even mainly changed by the exercise of force. The hearts and minds of people, the moral pressure of the international community, free press, free trade and so on are potent forces and all played a part in my examples.
Terrorism is a somewhat different matter, and you are right about those 1970s wacky groups. However, as Bonzo says, many terrorist groups spring from a perceived, and often real, grievance. A population is oppressed or abused in some way, and they will all be unhappy, some will harbour a dangerous, smouldering resentment, a few will want to make violent gestures, and an unpleasant handful will see the resentment of others as a chance to win power and influence for themselves. Bin Laden is probably one of these. Yes, Erin, he may have no reason for personal resentment, but he is using the resentment that others do feel, for understandable reasons, for his own vile ends.
In Northern Ireland the underlying issues about Catholic and Protestant and nationality gave rise to the troubles. But once underway, the troubles themselves feed the sectarianism. Young men joined the IRA, not, usually, because of convictions about who should govern them, but because their brother was run over by a British tank, or their father was held and interrogated without trial. Hard line responses are actually what terrorism seeks to provoke. So a dozen fanatics and nutters become a mass popular movement.
There have been issues between Islam and the West for a long time. In the long run there will have to be dialogues and adjustments of many sorts. The sooner the better. Maybe you don't negotiate with terrorists, but they flag up an underlying issue that will have to be dealt with.
And poor old Jesus with his idealistic teaching... Yes, it's extremely hard to know how to translate it into practice, but I really do think that 'Love your enemies' should encourage us to look for alternatives to killing people.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
And conversely, Bonzo, it seems that you can't get your head around the fact that some people are just plain evil.
We are all evil to some extent Erin.
Firstly I didn’t say that oppression was always to do with poverty, although it often is. In Al Quaeda it’s mainly about Israel and the treatment of Palestinians in terms of the possession of their land and removal of their political rights.
Some people are more evil than others. Sometimes war happens because of that evil. I have not advocated a pacifist stance on this thread, I just think that much terrorism could be avoided if the West was prepared to truthfully address their own mistakes especially w.r.t. Israel. Much of the solution to Al Quaeda resides with the Israeli government although not all. Perhaps the other countries in the west should put more pressure on Israel to act fairly.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise
Civil disobedience can do quite a lot, but if God forbid, people do end up being at the mercy of someone hell-bent on ethnic-cleansing or committing atrocities, quite simply one of the best forms of resistance is using the media and pressure groups outside of your country to persuade countries which do have the relevant military or economic might to weigh in on your side. It doesn't always work though, but sometimes it does.
And if those other countries wade in on the side of the oppressor, what then?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
...I don't know much about George W Bush's relationship with God(!)...
My understanding is that he had a conversion experience a few years ago, and is a sincere Christian. He was brought up Episcopalian, but now belongs to the Methodist Church.
quote:
...I'm not saying our allegience to Christ's teaching should be secondary to our allegience to a secular power; but as God (in his wisdom?) has committed us to living in these secular societies under the guardianship of earthly authorities, we need to find a balance between the idealism that Jesus taught characterized the kingdom of heaven, and the less happy realism of the kingdom of this world....
A wise, well-reasoned post, Anselmina. You've helped me in my own struggles with this matter. Thank you.
Rossweisse // unHellish though that may be...
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
...Many terrorist groups are started, not by people who have been wronged, but by people from comfy middle class backgrounds who have a particular ideology they want to enforce on others and sometimes they do this by piggy-backing it onto the legitimate grievances of others. Many of these factions come to sticky ends. Al Quaeda could well follow this route eventually....
Exactly, Louise. In fact, most terrorist movements have been led by educated members of the middle class, from the French Revolution to the Bolsheviks, from the Stern Gang to a-Quada. In the US, the Weathermen and the Symbionese Liberation Army were strictly a bunch of spoiled middle-class twits.
The leaders tend to latch on to legitimate grievances and exploit them for their own purposes. When everything blows up (as it were), the downtrodden are still suffering.
Rossweisse // who sees no excuse for terrorism of any kind
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
You know, I seem to recall that this thread's mutated topic has been done before. In addition, both the tenor and sophistication of the argument have clearly become Purgatorial.
It would probably be better to continue this discussion in Purgatory.
That being said, I am surprised that words such as "Just War" are bandied about seemingly without a clear sense of the definition. You can find the relevant passage of St. Thomas's Summa here.
tomb
hellhost
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
In Al Quaeda it’s mainly about Israel and the treatment of Palestinians in terms of the possession of their land and removal of their political rights.
Their motivations have nothing to do with Palestine. They are motivated because the western infidels have defiled the holy lands. That is what Osama bin Laden stated himself, many years ago, before the Palestinian cause became so fashionable for guilt-ridden, self-flagellating liberals.
[ 13. November 2002, 16:48: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
bonzo said If his request for a biblical argument is what you mean, that implies that he needs you to state your position rather than rant, in order that he might reply to that position.
The assumption that Matrixuk has made is that there is a self-evident biblical argument for pacifism but he has not provided it as yet.
He asks for the provision of a biblical position for a just War. I answered that it obviously has failed to read the bible fully and it is not my fault that he has not done so.
If you remember your OT the Jewish people went to war against various peoples at various times often on God's command. Based upon this simple analysis there must be times when war is acceptable. Jesus 'with his render unto ceaser' suggests that people of faith have an obligation to the state in which they live this would and this would inbvolve war.
If you wish to me to write about the just War I am happy to do so. There has been no coherent argument for pacifism as yet, I assume you don't have one.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
If we take that line, we also have to assume that there are times when genocide is acceptable, since Israel did that as well, allegedly with God's blessing.
The "coherent argument", for me, is simply that I cannot imagine Jesus dropping bombs on, or shooting, anyone, and therefore neither will I.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Their motivations have nothing to do with Palestine. They are motivated because the western infidels have defiled the holy lands. That is what Osama bin Laden stated himself, many years ago, before the Palestinian cause became so fashionable for guilt-ridden, self-flagellating liberals.
Peoples motivations change and people are motivated by many different things.
If you don't think Al Quaeda has anything to do with Israels opressions of the Palestinians then I'm afraid you're just exposing your ignorance.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Actually, it's more like you're exposing your naďveté. I'm not sure when/how Israel and Palestine became the de facto reason for EVERYTHING that happens in the Middle East.
Osama bin Laden could not possibly care less about Palestine if he tried. And if you think he's motivated by that, I've got a bridge and some oceanfront property you might like.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Have you ever stopped to think how terrorists become terrorists? The birth of virtually every terrorist group happens because a wronged group of people find no way to change their circumstances through any other means. It?s through disillusionment with any political process and desperation in the face of those who refuse to recognise their position, that some of those wronged people turn to terrorism.
Would you care to tell me what wrongs the Baader-Meinhof (sp?) group in Germany or the Weather Underground in America suffered. Or the Italian group that assassinated a prime minister?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
I'm not a student of middle eastern politics but I know this much:
Palestine is the major issue in the middle east but it's not the only issue. It's the major cause of resentment amongst Moslems. Bin Laden's objection to Infidels (US) on Saudi bases is not just because they aren't Moslem forces, it's because of US support for Israel.
It's mainly the Israel/Palestine issue which raises so much hatred of the West (esp. the US) amongst Moslems. The Israel/Palestine issue serves to fuel the environment in which Al Quaeda can recruit and flourish.
It also fuels the environment in which Bin Laden can now hide if he indeed still alive.
Israel/Palestine has been at the very root of middle eastern problems.
The other major driving factor has been the control of oil supplies to the West.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Would you care to suggest a solution, bearing in mind that many Muslim leaders have said they want the state of Israel wiped off the map?
Some have also said they want to kill all the Jews.
What is your answer?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
I think a really good start would be for Israel to remove it's provocative settlements from the West Bank and to return Jerusalem to it's 1967 boundaries.
But really, since this is currently not politically achievable, the best start would be to sit down and talk properly with the Palestinian leadership.
In retrospect, if this had been done many years ago we might not be in the state we are today.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Do I smell a Dead Horse here? A quick glance at this thread seems to show intractable positions, putting forward arguments that have been heard many times before and fail to convince the other side. If it looks like a deceased equine and smells like a deceased equine . . . .
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
The "coherent argument", for me, is simply that I cannot imagine Jesus dropping bombs on, or shooting, anyone, and therefore neither will I.
Where's the standing up and cheering smilie when I need it?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
I think a really good start would be for Israel to remove it's provocative settlements from the West Bank and to return Jerusalem to it's 1967 boundaries.
But really, since this is currently not politically achievable, the best start would be to sit down and talk properly with the Palestinian leadership.
In retrospect, if this had been done many years ago we might not be in the state we are today.
An even better start would be for people to stop aggravating the sensitive by writing "it's" when they mean "its". Simple rule: the bone belonging to the dog = "its bone". The answer to the question of what the dog is carrying about the house? "It's a bone." it's = it is. "Its" is possessive, just like his, hers, theirs and yours.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
(puts on Basil Brush voice)
Oooooooooooh!
So sorry that its such problem to you.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
So sorry that its such problem to you.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
I dunno... I can't imagine Jesus having sex, either, but that's not a valid argument for celibacy.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
The its/it's confusion is a big issue for me, as well. I tend to ignore it, however, unless I feel the great need to humiliate someone.
[clarified the post reference because Erin got in the way]
[ 13. November 2002, 23:04: Message edited by: tomb ]
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eanswyth
Ship's raven
# 3363
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I dunno... I can't imagine Jesus having sex, either, but that's not a valid argument for celibacy.
Or pooping. Or ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posts: 1323 | From: San Diego | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Thanks, Laura and Tomb, for saying something about its/it's. That always greatly irritates me and causes me to have to make an effort not to make any assumptions or judgments about the perpetrator. I wish people would get that right. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
I really hate to disappoint, and to brag, but I am far from ignorant about the contents of scripture, having spent the last ten years studying it.
I was not making an assumption that pacifism is the only truly biblical response, and am interested that some people can be so clouded by their own preconcieved notions that they read that into my posts.
However, I do see a severe strain between many of the opinions expressed here, and those expressed by Jesus. As i already understand how pacifism can be argued scripturally, i do not need to ask for anyone to explain that to me. As i understand Just War theory, I do not need that to be explained to me. However, as this "war on terror" and the thought of taking action against Iraq fall outside the scope of Just War theory, and because of the strong reactions this provokes - i am still interested in reading a well thought out, biblically based argument for revenge attacks, or unilateral strikes.
The idea that you could compare Jesus' cleansing of the temple with the current situation is risible. And your understanding of the background and reasons for Jesus' offense clearly lacking.
I appreciate that what i ask may be too difficult for posters on this list, and that perhaps i ought to start a thread in Purgatory, to see if someone capable of constructing a coherent argument could help, but i thought i would try here as it fits this thread, and so many people feel free to hold forth on the subject.
Of course, this post will probably just be criticised (this is hell after all) and people will swear at me, make accusations, misunderstand and dismiss me, but anywhooo - if there is someone who could make a clear argument i'd love to hear it.
Regards
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
Well, MatrixUK, inasmuch as you already understand everything, it seems superfluous to have a discussion or "frank exchange of ideas" with you.
I always feel so very blessed to be in the presence of people like you who know so very much.
Makes me all warm and respectful inside.
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I dunno... I can't imagine Jesus having sex, either, but that's not a valid argument for celibacy.
Well, I don't suppose he did. But despite all the stuff in Isaiah about the suffering servant not being much to look at, I've always been convinced that Our Lord was hot!
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
MatrixUk, earlier you asked for someone to explain just war theory from the bible then you already know the answer. Congratulations on making yourself look particularly stupid.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, Matrix. You know everything about everything that has ever happened or will ever happen in any universe that has ever existed or will ever exist. You are clearly FAR more intelligent than the rest of us, and so gosh-darned humble, too, that you just HAVE to be the Second Coming. Being in your presence just makes me want to commit hara-kiri out of the knowledge of just how unworthy I am to be in the same plane of existence as you.
Now that we've admitted that you are SO superior to the rest of us, will you PLEASE shut the fuck* up and go the fuck* away?
*This is proof that Matrix is a fucking psychic, too. Is there anything this arrogant shithead CAN'T do?
Yours forever,
Erin
PS: fuckwit, not all of us are Bible-thumping fundamentalist buttwrenches, as you so CLEARLY are, so we don't have a need to argue from a "biblical perspective".
[ 14. November 2002, 01:58: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
Oh, my! So much for misplaced admiration of MatrixUK's virtues. I thought when he wrote all that stuff about himself, that it was true. I'm so ashamed! Naivitee is such a curse! (Did I spell that right?)
And Ruth, as to Jesus being "hot," have you ever noticed how much the image on the Shroud of Turin looks like Charles Manson without the swastika? I suppose we should give Our Lord the benefit of the doubt, however. One can't possibly be at one's best right after the resurrection. All that shock to the systems (particularly after three days).
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
Naivitee is such a curse! (Did I spell that right?)
No.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
{snark}
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
And I even provided the correct spelling with all the funky dots and slashes over the right letters and everything.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Actually, it's more like you're exposing your naďveté.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
{clap} . {clap} . {clap}
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Matrix,
I’’t’s hardly surprising that you haven’t had a coherent answer here. Its because they haven’t got one.
Don’t get at Erin for the Liberal use of the word Fuck. If you had a Bush for Governor and another for President you’d say Fuck a lot.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
When I say I "Can't imagine" I'm not referring to my limited imagination; I mean that everything He did and said points, by my understanding and interpretation, to a man who would not do these things.
I can imagine Jesus having sex, had He had a wife.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I meant to add - YMMV. If you can imagine Jesus doing these things, or don't think that's a valid guide, then you're entitled to come to a different conclusion.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
I’m amazed, utterly amazed….
My posting was in reply to
quote:
Nightlamp said:
The assumption that Matrixuk has made is that there is a self-evident biblical argument for pacifism but he has not provided it as yet.
He asks for the provision of a biblical position for a just War. I answered that it obviously has failed to read the bible fully and it is not my fault that he has not done so.
Hence my reply. I make no such assumption, and I did not ask for an explanation of Just War theory. (although if I did I would be very disappointed by such a poor reply) Just to spell it out, the “war on terror” and pre-emptive strikes on Iraq fall outside of the usual understanding of Just War. I am, however, still keen to hear if anyone can justify the current stance being taken by so many, even if the best they can offer is some understanding of how Just War theory might be stretched to fit this circumstance.
It would be far too easy to resort to name calling, and entrenching my position. I am keen, very keen to try and understand the thinking behind comments and positions expressed here. I am hoping it goes deeper than “They hurt us so lets hurt them” but have seen little evidence of this.
quote:
Nightlamp also wrote:
MatrixUk, earlier you asked for someone to explain just war theory from the bible then you already know the answer. Congratulations on making yourself look particularly stupid.
Read that post again, then let’s talk about who looks stupid….
Erin, I’m sorry you have such a problem with me asking for a Biblical justification.
quote:
Erin wrote:
PS: fuckwit, not all of us are Bible-thumping fundamentalist buttwrenches, as you so CLEARLY are, so we don't have a need to argue from a "biblical perspective".
The phrase “Bible-thumping fundamentalist buttwrench”, as colourful and expressive as it may seem, is, however, completely innacurate.
Perhaps I should unpack why I ask for a Biblical justification. I can easily understand the revenge argument from a human point of view, an animalistic understanding of human nature would lead to that conclusion. I can understand some of the political reasoning, but by no means all. It occurs to me, and I am aware that this is not true for all Christians, that a Christian response might be rooted in scripture. For me, it would be helpful to hear if there is one, as that would be important in forming an opinion.
I really don’t want to believe that people here are so ignorant that they think only fundamentalists are interested in the Bible. Although I have a strange feeling I’m about to find out….
Regards
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
For the love of Christ, we've already bowed to your superior intellect and reasoning and humility and admitted that you are right on EVERYTHING, what the hell else do you want?
And regarding your scriptural demands -- it is malignantly ignorant to base a national response on a personal guide. The Bible is not a guide to running the world, it's a guide to your (meaning one person, not a nation-state) relationship with God. When it comes to what the leaders of a secular country with hundreds of faith traditions should do in the face of repeated threats of annhiliation, the Bible doesn't apply. So asking for a scriptural argument for a national response is just stupid.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
When it comes to what the leaders of a secular country with hundreds of faith traditions should do in the face of repeated threats of annhiliation, the Bible doesn't apply. So asking for a scriptural argument for a national response is just stupid.
What does apply in a secular country? Survival of the fittest?
Also, asking for a scriptural argument for a national response is not stupid if one is a Christian and wants to figure out if, as a Christian, one ought to support the actions of one's nation. Obviously one would not ask the nation to offer such an argument, but there is nothing stupid about asking other Christians who support that nation's actions.
Face it, Erin, you're using a brain dead argument (I had to add that, since this is Hell).
FCB
fundamentalist fuckwit
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Was Gandhi a simpleton? Was Jesus a fool to think he could change the world?
The positions are simple. Let us not let language or grammar cloud them. We can either bomb and blast our way out of this hole, or we can seek another way.
Listen, like Gandhi himself, I am not a pure pacifist either. Sometimes one has to fight for what you believe in and sometimes it might be necessary to kill an aggressor.
Note my use of the word sometimes . These cases are few and far between, and we need to make sure we are making value judgements in the cold light of day, not in the midst of our anger and pain. It is a far, far better thing to refuse to strike when you have the strength to do so. Gandhiji often had arguements with people who said that his philosophy was only for the weak, as is basically happening here. And he would put his head in his hands, and say, no, no, no. We should not hold back because we are too woosy, too afraid, scared of blood or whatever. We should hold back because we decide that, at the moment, we are in danger of obscuring our message with violence.
One cannot make peace with those who refuse to play by the rules. But by God, we can try. We can look for the other way that I am advocating. We can get our own house in order before pointing out the errors in others.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Well, FCB, what does apply in THIS secular country is the Constitution of the United States. Actions should arise from that, not a Bible. If you want to argue about US actions, you should be familiar with it. But at least you've nailed your colors to the fence and I can, with just cause, ignore you from now on.
Nosmo, my disagreement with your point of view is that there is no other way to deal with this. I disagree with your conclusion regarding their so-called causes. It is my firm belief, which has been born out by various statements issued by them throughout the years, that we are dying because of who we are, not what we do. I think declaring a jihad against Americans and Jews is sufficient evidence for that.
[ 14. November 2002, 12:00: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
I am hoping it goes deeper than “They hurt us so lets hurt them” but have seen little evidence of this.
Here’s my opinion on the subject:
The war against Afghanistan was instigated mainly on the basis of “They hurt us so let’s hurt them”. At the time other reasons were given, but the general mood seeping through was of a hurt nation trying to get its own back on someone. The war did remove a horribly repressive regime of Islamic fundamentalists and so IMO, coincidentally, did more good for the world than harm, but the intention was none the less driven by a need for revenge.
So, in retrospect, a war which was started for a number of wrong reasons and which apparently, largely, failed in its objective of destroying Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, is now proclaimed a success.
The West, buoyed by this success, have moved on to much more dangerous territory, that of starting a war on the “They might be going to hurt us so let’s hurt them” basis.
This is very much more tenuous ground to claim a just war. A rational argument can be made for it, but IMO the arguments fall short of justification.
What if war with Iraq does become a reality? What if the West win this one? Will this spur us on into other places in the world where there are those who disagree with us? Will the next war be started on the basis of “We were right the last two times, trust us we’re right this time”.
I suppose, for some, it comes down to how much you trust those who are saying that there is a real threat. Personally, given the past record of politicians, I don’t trust them at all. The whole thing seems to me to be driven by those who, running scared, say “Can we afford not to trust them”. My reply is that the world is more likely to become a less safe place because we go to war.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'm happy to agree to disagree about that Erin.
Perhaps you can enlighten me on what the american constitution says about people being innocent until proven guilty, fair trials, the process of law, etc. I don't think that assassination is lawful under international law or the constitution.
Again, this illustrates what I am trying to say about double standards.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Also - how exactly do you (or anyone else advocating your position), Erin, propose to go about waging war on a noun (or is it a verb - I guess one is a 'terrorist' but what about 'terror', please help oh grammatical geniuses (geniii??))? I would say that the words of Jesus and Gandhi are entirely appropriate in this situation, perhaps even more than in others, where we do not have a defined enemy.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nosmo:
Was Gandhi a simpleton? Was Jesus a fool to think he could change the world?
<snip>
Listen, like Gandhi himself, I am not a pure pacifist either. Sometimes one has to fight for what you believe in and sometimes it might be necessary to kill an aggressor.
In my post of 13 November at 13;35, I explained why I believe that Gandhi's tactics will not work in the present situation.
Will you please tell us why you disagree with that position.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Hello Moo,
I'm having difficulty locating the post you want me to comment on. Do you mean the one where you were saying that Gandhi was dealing with a people who had preached Christianity??
I hope so cos that's what I am going to try to answer....
Generally, I suppose in the loosest terms British India could be termed as having a Christian heritage. Though specifically, a small number of British governors and beaurocrats used a large civil service comprising of people of all religions. Add to that the princely states and it is clear that the system survived more due to corrupt patronage than anything else.
The group of which Gandhi 'led' (despite never holding a position of office) comprised of Christians, Muslims, Hindus as well as other religions.
I honestly can't understand what it is you are asking here. Are you suggesting that Gandhi was pandering to the British latent christianity? Please clarify.
Remember, some years before hand, Winston Churchill no less, said that if some little brown fakir thought that he was going to bring down the british empire then he was very much mistaken.
Independance came when the British realised that they
1. Could not rule hundreds of millions of people who didn't want to be ruled.
2. Had lost the moral argument and therefore had nothing more to say or do. Indians did not want the British to rule, but were not prepared to start a civil war over it. It is very difficult to rule someone who will not co-operate but who is not afraid of you. Unfortunately, they were later prepared to kill each other.
Are you saying this has no relevance to the current situation?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
But at least you've nailed your colors to the fence and I can, with just cause, ignore you from now on.
Promises, promises.
And, by the way, please peruse your copy of the Constitution and see if it offers any (that is any) criteria for deciding on the morality of war. Good luck on your search.
I think you have a fairly fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the Constitution. It is not a source of moral guidance, nor was it designed to be. You should take it off that flagpole you're waving it on and look at it some time.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nosmo:
Are you saying this has no relevance to the current situation?
Yes. (I know you were asking Moo, but I'll answer anyway.)
In the first place, the Muslim extremist terrorists are not interested in ruling us. Their stated desire is to eliminate us. Big difference.
In the second place, Indian pacifism would not have lasted long had the British adopted an ongoing policy of wholesale slaughter. The Indians would have either submitted or forcefully overthrown the British. As Moo pointed out, the success of Indian pacifism was dependent on the underlying moral system of the opposition. al Queda, et al, have no such aversion to large-scale murder. They have shown that they are willing to kill by the hundreds or thousands until they get what they want.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Scot,
It seems to me that you advocate the use of violence where passive resistance is not a viable alternative. So presumably you either support the violent struggle of the Palestinians against their Israeli oppressors or you believe that they should remain pacifist in that instance.
Which is it?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
